Salaries of Scientists Drop

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sun Dec 21 05:23:51 EST 2003


"Earle Jones" <earle.jones at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-D11459.12335520122003 at netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <sXREb.2006$IM3.1597 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Noelie S. Alito" <noelie at deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bs0cvp$86a3o$1 at ID-117948.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
message
> > > news:brshok$b5e$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> > > > In bionet.neuroscience dkomo <dkomo at concentric.net> wrote:
> > > > > jsp wrote:
> > > > >> During the past two years, the salaries of
> > > > >> most scientists have decreased significantly.
> > > > >> See
> > > > >> http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html
> > > >
> > > > We were never in it primarily for the salary anyway.
> > >
> > > Yeah, we know:  The big money is in reselling lab
> > > equipment and supplies.
> >
> > The big-'profits' are in creating artificial stimulus-response
> > situations re. 'drug' use.
> >
> > It's also an ab-use of everything that Neuroscience is.
> >
> > The 'profit'-seekers 'just' hijack our Science.
> >
> > It's been so curious to me that no one speaks-out
> > against such.
> >
> > It's exactly analogous to any run-of-the-mill
> > organized crime, after all.
> >
> > The 'silence' that's prevailed speaks volumes
> > with respect to the coercive dynamics that
> > are in-place.
> >
> > All the more reason to stand-against-it.
> >
> > ken
> >
>
> Ken:  Hi!
>
> Perhaps I missed an earlier post of yours, but what I read above is
> difficult to understand.  Would you please expand on what it is you are
> trying to say?
>
> For example, you say "The big-'profits' are in creating artificial
> stimulus-response situations re. 'drug' use."
>
> Are you talking about companies like Eli Lilly, Bayer, Syntex, Hoffman,
> etc. -- the big drug companies?
>
> And your last line, "All the more reason to stand-against-it".  Stand
> against what?
>
> Thanks,
>
> earle
> *

What I was commenting upon is the way
folks're being innundated with advertizements
pushing prescription drugs.

And the fact that the mere existence of such
innundation acts to establish an artificiall
demand for the drugs and their use.

It's virtually the same as folks 'selling the
Brooklyn Bridge".

If there's no need for the drug, pushing it
to the degree that folks're induced to
purchase and use the drugs is completely
nonsensical.

I was addressing the absence of Ethic within
such practice.

And it's personally vexing to witness Medical
Practice being so blatently 'commercialized',
in a way that's manipulative with respect to
heaped-up stimulation that self-directs to
a particular response that is simultaneously
calculated, not with respect to folks' well-beings,
but with respect to pharmaceutical companies'
'profits'.

The drugs I'm talking about all require action
by MDs.

Since that's necessary, why not just allow the
MDs and their Patients choose what medications
the Patient will be prescribed?

Why not let the MDs do Medicine, rather than
generating an artificial stimulus->response
relationship in non-medical-professionals'
nervous systems?

Why would I want a drug that my MD doesn't
reccommend?

I'm talking about all of this stuff.

I'm saying it's as unethical as the actions of the
dope-dealers that prey upon users of illegal
drugs.

I'm saying it's just flat-out unethical to create
artificial stimulus->response relationships
between drugs that require action by MDs
and non-medical-professionals.

I'm saying it's an unethical use of advertizing.

I'm also saying that the fact that 'no one' speaks
out against clearly unethical practice discloses
that there is an active system of coercion in
place and that that's dictating that the absence-
of-ethic not be challenged or even discussed.

I'm saying that the 'silence' discloses a lot about
the way that both Medical and general Scientific
ethics have been undermined by corporate 'profit'-
seeking.

It's 'just' a pile of jackass stuff that sits there,
as a societal self-condemnation, because it
discloses that folks don't give a damn about
professional ethics, but care only about 'profits'.

And, look, if you get your drugs after they've
been shipped to Canada, even though the
cost of shipping them back has to be paid,
you can still get the drugs for 1/2 of what they
cost here in the U.S.

I was satyrizing all of this jackass, unethical
stuff that's happening because corporate
'profit'-seeking has gone wild.

It's come to the point at which anything that's
not explicitly prohibited is acted upon as if
the absence of specific prohibition is some
sort of 'declaration' that it's 'OK' to do this
or that.

And it's easy to see where that leeds, because
there just aren't enough resources to explicitly
prohibit this or that on an individual basis be-
cause the 'profit'-seekers can tweak this or
that in virtually-limitless ways to 'get-around'
any explicit prohibition that's promulgated.

You know?

It's all B. S. that's pushed aside personal
responsibility-taking.

I'm satyrizing the whole pile of crap.

K. P. Collins




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list